Peoples not to be removed from their lands or territories, their right to Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including rights of Indigenous Undermine existing rights under the ILO Convention 169 and UN Declaration on the The draft directive also formalises a role for exactly the types of ‘industry initiatives’ and ‘third-party verifications’ our investigation reveals are a conduit for structural human rights risks, and can prevent companies from being held legally accountable.ĭirective on human rights due diligence must support and in no way replace or Such as those in Paraguay our investigation exposes. Not be required to do due diligence on all the farmers they source from,
#Clash royale promotee toxicity full
The proposed draft EU directive on human rights dueĭiligence is also full of loopholes. Recent deforestation, and cases like those in this report will not be Although theĮuropean Parliament is working to resist this, the proposed EUĭeforestation Regulation will only apply to human rights cases linked to Of soy tarred by land grabbing and human rights harms. This investigation has advocated for the new rules on deforestation toĪccept leaky certification systems that would ensure continued imports
Lobbying by many of the traders and animal feed companies exposed in Yet these proposals are still under negotiation, and it is critical to ensure they provide sufficient accountability. Require companies to carry out checks on their supply chains – known as dueĭiligence – to identify their existing and potential impacts, prevent theirĪctivities from contributing to further harms, and address those that haveĮradicate abuses from corporate value chains, particularly for high-risk Proposed two laws mandating that companies eliminate human rights,Įnvironmental and climate abuses from their value chains.Īnd the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will both All of the responses receivedĬommitted to end corporate complicity in human rights and environmental harms. Their policies on human rights and land rights. Responded said they would investigate what they regarded to be violations of Sent our findings to all the companies concerned. Indigenous and campesino communities in Paraguay. Purchasing products made at the expense of the fundamental human rights of Of European consumers of 2 Sisters’ and Danish Crown’s products are also likely Human rights risk into these supply chains.Īs a result of these failings, our investigation shows millions ‘sustainable’ soy constitutes negligence dressed as sustainability, and locks Named in this report, the acceptance and promotion of this nominally They supply, and onto the mega farms, meat processors, and big brand retailers Soy from farms like those we visited in Paraguay into nominally certifiedĬonsignments, resulting in the tainting of most of Europe’s Paraguayan soyįrom the traders themselves, through the animal feed companies This system – ostensibly intended to help clean up Europe’s soy imports – mixes We consider to be an accounting trick known as ‘mass balance certification’. Our research reveals how the companies involved have adopted what Value chains is ‘responsibly produced’ by 2025. Voluntary sustainability commitments they have adopted to ensure soy in their Moreover, these failings are all too readily inherited by theĮuropean corporates our investigation encountered – even being baked into Represent egregious failings under international UN and OECD standards.
Purchases of soy from Paraguayan farmers who have violated basic human rights
0 kommentar(er)
